Amicus Podcast Summary: "Sneak Preview: SCOTUS Apparently Doesn’t Believe Trans People Exist"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
• Host: Dahlia Lithwick, Slate Podcasts
• Episode: Sneak Preview: SCOTUS Apparently Doesn’t Believe Trans People Exist
• Release Date: June 18, 2025
• Description: A deep dive into the Supreme Court's decisions affecting transgender rights, featuring expert analysis and insights.

Introduction

In the episode titled "Sneak Preview: SCOTUS Apparently Doesn’t Believe Trans People Exist," host Dahlia Lithwick engages in a critical discussion with legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern about the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States vs. Skremetti. This landmark ruling has significant implications for transgender rights, particularly regarding access to gender-affirming care for minors.

Supreme Court Decision Overview

On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in United States vs. Skremetti with a 6-3 majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Court upheld Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors, ruling that it does not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause based on sex or transgender status.

Key Points:

• Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts argued that the law does not constitute sex discrimination because it classifies individuals based on age and medical use, both considered non-suspect categories under constitutional scrutiny.
• Legal Precedent: The decision draws heavily on previous cases, notably Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, setting a precedent for deference to state legislation on sensitive issues.

Notable Quote:

"These laws are regulating a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo... This is just a regulation of medicine."
— Mark Joseph Stern [03:45]

Chief Justice Roberts’ Reasoning

Chief Justice Roberts employed a strategic interpretation to classify the Tennessee law under rational basis review, the most lenient form of judicial scrutiny. By doing so, the Court afforded the legislature broad discretion in regulating medical treatments without recognizing it as targeted discrimination against transgender individuals.

Strategies Used:

1. Age Classification: Roberts emphasized that the law targets minors, not adults, arguing that age-based classifications are constitutionally permissible and fall outside the realm of suspect classifications that warrant heightened scrutiny.
2. Medical Use Classification: He further contended that the law regulates medical procedures, allowing such treatments for conditions unrelated to gender dysphoria. This, according to the majority, separates gender-affirming care from legitimate medical practices.

Notable Quote:

"This is just an effort to protect medicine, to protect patients... and approved by the governing medical authorities."
— Mark Joseph Stern [03:45]

Critique of the Court’s Reasoning

Mark Joseph Stern critically dissected the majority opinion, highlighting inherent contradictions and challenges in the Court's rationale:

• Discriminatory Impact Disguised: Stern argues that although the law ostensibly avoids sex-based discrimination by focusing on age and medical use, its application disproportionately targets transgender minors. This selective restriction effectively discriminates based on transgender status.

• Pretextual Justifications: The Court’s reliance on non-suspect classifications serves as a facade to mask underlying discriminatory motives. By framing the law as a measure to safeguard medical standards, the majority sidesteps the discriminatory essence of the legislation.

Notable Quote:

"He pulls this kind of jujitsu move... to say that not only is this totally fine under sex discrimination law, but this doesn't even discriminate on the basis of transgender status."
— Mark Joseph Stern [06:00]

Connection to the Dobbs Decision

The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs plays an underlying yet pivotal role in the reasoning of Skremetti. While Chief Justice Roberts does not explicitly cite Dobbs, the Skremetti opinion echoes its principles:

• Deference to State Legislatures: Drawing parallels to Dobbs, the Court in Skremetti emphasizes deference to state authority in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty. This alignment underscores a broader judicial trend toward limiting federal oversight on contentious social issues.

• Precedential Influence: Justices Alito and Thomas, in their concurring opinions, explicitly reference Dobbs, reinforcing the notion that the Court's approach to transgender rights is fundamentally influenced by its stance on reproductive rights.

Notable Quote:

"The reasoning across the board for all six conservatives is really foundationally rooted in what the Court said when overturning Roe v. Wade."
— Mark Joseph Stern [08:09]

Implications and Reactions

The ruling in Skremetti marks a significant setback for transgender rights, particularly in the realm of healthcare access for minors. This decision legitimizes similar laws across more than 20 states, intensifying the legal and social battles faced by transgender individuals.

Political Climate:

• Conservative Judicial Influence: The decision exemplifies the impact of a conservative-leaning judiciary in shaping laws that curtail minority rights under the guise of protecting medical and societal norms.
• Centralized Assault on Trans Rights: As highlighted by the ACLU's Chase Strangio, there has been a coordinated and strategic effort to undermine transgender rights, a movement that gained momentum post-Dobbs.

Notable Quote:

"It is never, nevertheless just an utterly devastating blow for trans rights in a political climate that has featured an all out assault on transgender Americans since Donald Trump took office."
— Dahlia Lithwick [00:09]

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in United States vs. Skremetti represents a critical juncture in the ongoing struggle for transgender rights in the United States. By upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, the Court has set a precedent that may have far-reaching consequences for healthcare access and the broader fight against discrimination. The episode underscores the importance of vigilant legal advocacy and the need for continuous public discourse to address and resist judicial decisions that threaten the rights of marginalized communities.

Additional Resources: For those interested in a more in-depth analysis and ongoing coverage, subscribing to Slate Plus offers access to exclusive episodes and legal insights. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to subscribe.